resource maps

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:28 AM, William Reade
<william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the simplest option is to expose "cost", treat empty
> costs as 0, and choose arbitrarily between equally-cheap options; it
> solves the problem we have now, and doesn't tempt us to define an ad-hoc
> weighted feature-cost-ranking algorithm which would IMO become a
> millstone (or irritate users when we inevitably tweak it).

I actually find such a precedence setting attractive. It allows us to
define ordering so that conflicts may be solved (is it cheaper to run
2 CPU + 2048 GB of memory or 4 CPU + 1024 GB of memory?) without
attempting to get onto cost issues. Such a weighting value will remain
valid for longer, while prices devalue and get out of date with time
(AWS prices change somewhat frequently).

> Yep; this would be cool. Unless you suspect the current proposal closes
> any doors on this, I'd prefer not to focus on this for now.

+1


gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net